A Blank Spot
All comments and e-mails will eventually get processed.
The female-supremacist hate movement called 'feminism' must be opened to the disinfecting sunlight of the world's gaze and held to a stern accounting for its grievous transgressions.
|"Where is the condemnation of the whole concept of child support as dictated by the state? |
"There are so many things wrong with the MRM..
"Firstly, they start off from pretty much the same position that the feminists do..
"Bleating about how they are "oppressed" and demanding "rights" etc..
"Then, they use the same tactics as the feminists..
"Whinging, complaining, asking nanny state to give a shit.. which it doesnt! The state simply wants to extract the max it can get away with from the fathers, to subsidise its own expenses in family destruction..
"Child support is nothing other than an additional "tax" burden that targets fathers, who have no fucking rights anyway!
"Men are not responsible for childrens upbringing, the state is, that is clear because men are DENIED their natural role!!
"Whenever I see MRAs and fathers activists talking about child support, they are forever moaning about the LEVELS of child support, NOT the whole sick concept of it!!
"Men do not VOLUNTARILY give up their kids, they are removed from them. Thus, they are PREVENTED from supporting their kids!"
|Where is the condemnation of the whole concept of child support as dictated by the state? There are so many things wrong with the MRM.. |
Firstly, they start off from pretty much the same position that the feminists do..
Bleating about how they are "oppressed" and demanding "rights" etc
I see that I am looking at the problem from a whole different vantage than you are, but. . . I must admit that your vantage is excellent. You are making me ponder.
Really, from the standpoint of pure STRATEGY, the "bleating" which you describe is about the worst behavior I can imagine. (Although it may sometimes have tactical value. . .)
But seriously, when you are dealing with a force like feminism, you are dealing with a BULLY. And bleating doesn't work with a bully; it just makes you a punk; it makes you a sucker! Which is why I am developing a philosophy of ruthless psychological arm-twisting in dealing with the feminists and their allies. Start with a cogent analysis, a map of the terrain. Then, AGITATE, and activate the world against them. After a certain point, you are dealing from a position of power, and then the whole game changes . . .
| Then, they use the same tactics as the feminists.. |
Whinging, complaining, asking nanny state to give a shit.. which it doesnt! The state simply wants to extract the max it can get away with from the fathers, to subsidise its own expenses in family destruction..
All right, I try to see the tactical advantage in this: It generates publicity; it makes more people aware of the problem. Which means that you can begin to engineer a demographic groundswell against feminist ideology and politics. Eventually, this is like shaking a big, fat political fist in their face. That is the language which a bully understands.
As the feminists would say, it's empowering.
And once you've got that kind of power, you can begin to organize and do ALL kinds of things, limited only by your creative imagination. Yes, guys like yourself could THEN step up and start preaching your anti-statist gospel, and do so FAR more effectively, with a primed and receptive audience. . .
| Child support is nothing other than an additional "tax" burden that targets fathers, who have no fucking rights anyway! |
Men are not responsible for childrens upbringing, the state is, that is clear because men are DENIED their natural role!!
Whenever I see MRAs and father's activists talking about child support, they are forever moaning about the LEVELS of child support, NOT the whole sick concept of it!!
First things first: Build a support base; build a mass movement. And in order to do THAT, you must be careful what you preach during the initial stages. It is like building a campfire: you must nurse the small flame along very very carefully, shelter it, blow on it gently, feed it the driest of tinders, and work your way up to kindling, etc, et al. If all goes well, then soon you've got a roaring blaze, with people gathered around to warm themselves, and you can give away firebrands to those who need them. . .
Once you've got that mass movement started, all things become possible. But in the early stages, the important thing is publicity, and the best plan for THAT is to appeal to public emotion without advocating ideas that are TOO controversial or too far ahead of what the public mind can readily comprehend . . .
When you generate that mass base, you prepare the ground; you foster a climate where people dare to entertain novel ideas. You grease the wheels and get them rolling; you generate the momentum of change in the first place.
And having once gotten to THAT point, you step up and start preaching.
|Men do not VOLUNTARILY give up their kids, they are removed from them. Thus, they are PREVENTED from supporting their kids!|
Excellently said. I must remember that!In response to my response, Hahoo wrote at VERY great length, the following:
|Yes, I have a feeling I need to put together my thoughts.. |
The problem is, there are many, many thoughts..
They are also integrated from many years of being honed on varied forums in response to the usual stimuli..
My difficulty is, I cant really address the masses, I never have been able to, my message only comes across correctly to those who have studied the ground and been dealing with the masses themselves..
The masses are too brainwashed..
I have a natural disinclination for dealing with brainwashed people!!
I have a natural inclination to swearing at them in frustration and stuffing their dicks in their mouths as they seek to show me their wonderful "new formula for the fair child-support levels.."
Experts in the mens movement have been telling me all along that i am jumping ahead, that I have to feed the info out bit by bit..
But, I dont seem able to do that, because it is too bloody much!!
I can put it simply, the state has stolen our roles under the pretext of "childrens best interest"..
But the state does not have a VESTED INTEREST in our children like we parents do!!
The states vested interest is in its future slave stock.. Not the same level of interest as what parents have!!
And, the state is NOT A PARTY TO the decision to CREATE children.. That is decided by parents alone!!
Hence, the state really should NOT be claiming OUR children!
Should not be artificially constraining and defining our relationships with our children.. Or each other..
And we really need to to get this message across!!
The "moderate" MRM gets the support of the masses..
In the same way as a bus would get the support of the masses if they wanted to be moved..
I want the masses to claim the appropriate vehicle to move them, one that runs on THIER OWN timetable, not state decree!!
You know, several years ago I used to frequent a mens forum, and they were forever bragging about their "perfect" court orders, how they had contact with their kids just as they wanted, how they defined it..
Do we want to run to a fucking weekly timetable in our dealings with our kids?
Is that what MEN really want?
If thats what they want, then they deserve to get nothing but ripped the piss out of!!
We really need to move towards understanding a certain fact of life..
Parents should have open access to their kids, that is how parents do their job best..
Court orders should not be needed!!
"Child support" is raising your kids, not paying the other parent money!!
Anyway, I may be changing my emphasis in this game shortly..
It seems that there is a need for some education material to be created and developed!!
I May be joining the blogosphere shortly, something I thought I would never do!!
There are many good writers in the MRM, I will have to read up on them a bit more and add my contributions..
They are certainly easier fellows to work with than the brain-dead plebs that you find in the pussy-whipped moderates groups!!
Id turn the whole system on its head..
The list of "family law" crimes would probably start with the first and foremost crime..
Impeding a parent in his/her contact with his/her children..
The state does not need to know WHY a parent is wanting to have contact with his/her children..
It needs to know WHY a person is seeking to stop this!!
Simply put, a father should be able to enter any home, building, anywhere, where his kids are and the offences that may be committed under these circumstances would relate primarily to ANYONE WHO IMPEDES HIM!
Dont pity the lawyers that would lose their business!
In the case of parents wanting CS money off another parent..
The issue should be..
Why are the kids living with the parent who does not have the means to support them?
Would it not be better to have them homed with the parent that has the money?
|Military concept - 'Friendly Forces'. |
Biblical stance - 'The enemy of mine enemy, is my friend'.
Contemporary culture - "Is that a gun in your pocket, or are you glad to see me'?
Let's hear it for Cheryl Quiambao.
"Fathers & Families' highly-publicized lawsuit against the new Massachusetts child support guidelines was heard in a Boston court today. As of 2008 Massachusetts' child support guidelines were already among the highest in the country, and the new guidelines raised them right in the face of one of the worst recessions of the past 100 years.
"As anticipated, Judge MacDonald heard the arguments from representatives of the Massachusetts Chief Justice for Administration and Management Robert A. Mulligan and our attorney Gregory Hession, and took the case under advisement.
"Over 50 Fathers & Families supporters attended the hearing in support. Our lawsuit has been covered by the Associated Press, the New York Times, CBS, WRKO, the Boston Globe, NPR, Newsweek."
And yes, here is the link so you can view the entire article: http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3609
You will see a photo of one of the main activists in this affair. Her name is Cheryl Quiambao, and as you might have already guessed, she is female.
Now, the Fathers and Families organization is a kind of a grey-zone organism, given that it is not strictly and narrowly part of the so-called "men's movement", yet is politically right next door to it and even, in a manner of speaking, draws its water from the same well. Such are the complexities and ambiguities of the non-feminist sector. And I hope that my feminist readers are paying attention, and taking notes: they really need to get straight about this stuff!
The updated child-support guidelines in Massachusetts (mentioned in the article) are just another move in the game of perpetual revolution—the latest expansion of the femplex, the latest augmentation of the feminist power base in general, the latest way to suck more blood out of men and move the world closer to the projected goal of female supremacy.
But even if the word feminism never comes up at all, the fact remains that this latest activism campaign constitutes an attack upon feminism because it directly blocks the expansion of feminist innovation. Many of the people involved in the campaign might not think in those terms, but that is exactly what they are doing. They are blocking a plan which directly exploits men in order to empower women, and no matter what anybody says, such a plan is pure, undistilled feminism in its most nakedly elemental form.
It matters not what others call it, or fail to call it. The thing is what it is what it IS, and it needs a consistent name, and as a non-feminist, I say it is feminism! I say this because I hold as good a claim to define the objective forces that shape my world as anybody else does. I stake an additional claim because I know that the average feminist has a confessional interest in promoting her cult and is likely to suppress certain aspects of it.
Feminism is a vast, sprawling, organism—and so is non-feminism. It takes a big beast to vanquish another big beast, or then again maybe it takes a big horde of little beasties to gang up on that big beast and devour it like piranhas, but either way, it takes big to defeat big. And so just as feminism is many things presenting itself in many ways, so too non-feminism must be many things in many ways, in order to encompass and counteract with an adequate range of specialization the many things which are feminism.
It is possible that some of the people in the Fathers and Families group would loosely identify as "feminist", or express mild approval of feminism as they conceive it. On the other hand, it is quite probable that most of the people who oppose them would form a formidable phalanx of indoctrinated adherents to the feminist worldview. The difference between the two groups would be dramatic.
And too, is very likely that the Fathers and Families group would contain a great number of people who know perfectly well what is up with feminism, and would concur with the present writer on most points, even though their immediate political focus is not upon feminism per se, but rather upon the fruits of feminist innnovation. On the other hand, it is unlikely that the opposing gang would contain ANY people of this description.
So the possible presence of mildly feminist-leaning elements (with a naive understanding of feminism) in the Fathers and Families group—and similar groups everywhere—shows us that the border between the feminist and non-feminist sectors is not yet so clearly drawn as we might wish it. That any degree of positive evaluation still adheres to the word feminism (in the minds of people who are NOT profoundly feminist) shows that there is work to be done. The word feminism oughtn't have a halo of any kind—not even a faint one. So, with a developing pressure to get on one side or the other, this word would gain a decisively unsavory aroma, and anybody who is not radically feminist would fight shy of it.
Labels: kyle payne
"So, I'm surfing around, procrastinating, you know how it goes, and I find what appears to me at first to be yet another garden variety (as these things go, there aren't actually THAT many of them I don't think) male radical feminist blog, one Kyle Payne. Since I'm in the mood to snark, I read and roll my eyes a bit: yeah, your classic: all of 22 years old and teddibly teddibly earnest, doesn't seem totally rabid or nothin' but your basic pompous, sanctimonious hetboy dweeb fangirling Andrea Dworkin and other Famous Not The Fun Kind Feminists for whatever reason. Yeah, there are a few of these around, mostly kind of, well, um, creepy and risible in a milquetoast way at best, foamingly horrid at worst. Ime, imnsho, etc."What towers above all else in that twittering passage, is that here we have a self-declared feminist of some standing in the online feminist community whose gut feeling about pro-feminist lickspittles of Kyle's sort, is nearly identical to my own! Heavens, I am seeing eye-to-eye with a feminist, and that makes me fear for my soul! :-( As to Kyle's specific offense in the present case, Belledame's reaction is an angry "fuck you!", in contrast to my own more restrained "yuck!"
"The crime which was committed is one Kyle will regret for the rest of his days. I believe this with every fiber of my being. Not because he was punished, not because he was caught, but because it exposed something within himself that he was not previously aware of. As Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote “The man hath penance done, and penance more will do.” There is no doubt in my mind that Kyle has done and will do penance in his heart and mind as he attempts to live out his life."All right, so there was something within Kyle Payne that he was not previously aware of. Or rather, not consciously aware of. But then again, if he had kiddie porn on his computer, he must have been consciously aware of it, so this is a bit confusing. However, the point of interest is that here we have a pro-feminist male in a cult of angelic devotion to womanhood who harbored, deep within his psyche, a very interesting slime-cluster. And the entire purpose of this angelic cult, is to demonize: to blame normal men and normal "manhood" for what is loathsome within yourself— to deny what is loathsome within yourself by projecting it onto somebody else. Making somebody else take the heat for your sins.
"The young man who outed me to the feminist blogosphere was (and perhaps still is) a serial rapist.. . . I’m not surprised when I realize that many of the most misogynist men I have ever met, who wouldn’t be caught dead supporting women’s liberation in any way, shape, or form, will gladly stand shoulder-to-shoulder with feminists when it comes to identifying a scapegoat for sexual violence."Forgive me, but I do not consider Kyle Payne to be a "scapegoat"— not abstractly, not hypothetically, not remotely. A scapegoat, properly understood, is an innocent creature taking the heat for the sins of others. But in the present case, Kyle gets no heat for any sins other than his own. Nor does he appear to be an innocent creature. Certainly, Kyle does not bear the burden of MY particular sins. My chief sin is procrastination, and I do not know enough about Kyle to know if he is a procrastinator. But if he is, then he does not bear the burden for MY procrastination! Nor is Kyle Payne the "lamb of god who taketh away the sins of the (male) world". He is not, by any stretch of the imagination, Jesus Christ! And since I am sure the feminists would concur wholeheartedly on that last point, I will stand with them shoulder-to-shoulder. There is no lack of genuine male scapegoats in the world today, but Kyle Payne is unworthy to elect himself into their company. He crawls.
Labels: kyle payne
Ahh. . . so the mothers-in-law are the pivotal culprits in that game. Wouldn't ya know it?
"It took a death threat to stop Abdi’s wife from circumcising their two daughters, aged 2 and 4. She called him from Somalia while on holiday to say she wanted to carry out the procedure.
"Abdi, a London-based Somali, said that his wife’s eagerness to circumcise their daughters was fuelled by a combination of religious, cultural and tribal pressures placed on her after she took the girls to Somalia for a brief summer break last year."But he refused to be swayed, despite his wife’s argument that the girls would improve their chances of attracting a good husband because they would be perceived as being more traditional and pure.
“I told my wife and her mother — who was really eager to have my girls circumcised — that if they dare do it, I will kill my wife,” he said. “And I also said I will take the girls to the GP when they return from Somalia to make sure that they didn’t have it done to them.”
"Abdi, 29, is one of a growing number of African men opposing female circumcision because of the psychological and physiological effects it has on its victims.
“It is women who believe in the concept as their duty to look after their children,” said Abdi, who is also aware of prospective mother-in-laws examining their sons’ future brides to ensure they are circumcised.
"Women “fear that if they don’t circumcise their daughters then they won’t be able to get them married”, he said.
“I know many men who work very hard — and at times make serious threats to their wives — to make sure their girls don’t get circumcised,” he added."